HM Attorney General v British Broadcasting Corporation [2007] EWCA Civ 280 (12 March 2007)

HM Attorney General v British Broadcasting Corporation [2007] EWCA Civ 280 (12 March 2007)

The Court of Appeal held that the High Court judge erred in principle by applying an incorrect (lower) threshold for maintaining the privacy and confidentiality orders under CPR 39.2. The correct standard was the criminal standard of proof, as applied in the original injunction. Once the principal injunction restraining publication of the document was discharged, the residual concerns about prejudice to the investigation were speculative and unsupported by evidence. There was no convincing evidence that publication would create a substantial risk of serious prejudice to the investigation or to any individual's right to a fair trial. Accordingly, the orders restraining publication and...

Citation
[2007] EWCA Civ 280
Parties
Respondent: Her Majesty's Attorney General; Applicant/appellant: British Broadcasting Corporation
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 March 2007
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (queen's Bench Division) to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Interlocutory Injunctions, Open Justice, Contempt of Court, Freedom of Expression, Confidentiality, Police Investigations, Human Rights Act 1998, European Convention on Human Rights
Media Law Criminal Law Civil Procedure Human Rights Interlocutory Injunctions Open Justice Contempt of Court Freedom of Expression +4 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty's Attorney General

Respondent

British Broadcasting Corporation

Applicant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (queen's Bench Division) to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court erred in refusing to discharge confidentiality and privacy orders restraining publication of certain information relating to a police investigation.
  2. 2 Whether the correct legal test and standard of proof was applied in maintaining the orders under CPR 39.2.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that the High Court judge erred in principle by applying an incorrect (lower) threshold for maintaining the privacy and confidentiality orders under CPR 39.2. The correct standard was the criminal standard of proof, as applied in the original injunction. Once the principal injunction restraining publication of the document was discharged, the residual concerns about prejudice to the investigation were speculative and unsupported by evidence. There was no convincing evidence that publication would create a substantial risk of serious prejudice to the investigation or to any individual's right to a fair trial. Accordingly, the orders restraining publication and...

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • The appeal is allowed. The privacy and confidentiality orders (paragraphs 2, 3, and 5 of the original order) are discharged. The arguments, judgments, and orders are to be in the public domain.